emil-lp

If you replace "pdf" with "abs" the link sends you to the arXiv landing site.

> If we have a bioweapon close call, would you consider AI an existential risk at that point? If not, how close would we need to get?

The thing is, this doesn't really mean anything.

What is a bioweapon close call? What is the process in which a bioweapon close call happens? An AI that hacks all cell phones to emitt anthrax?

Is this HN crowd in the room now?

It's understandable, at this point, to be weary of pelicans.

You cannot guarantee that from a hash map since an adversary who knows the hash function (unless it's cryptographic) could game the data structure to their advantage.

Θ does not usually mean average, but simultaneously upper and lower asymptotic bounds.

> To put it differently, saying that a hash table is O(1) or constant time is a model

Nobody really says that, nor is it a model. It is the expected time complexity.

Expected

I read your arxiv paper yesterday (or was it the day before).

Do you think this can be used to speed up the algebraic method for k-path?

If so, you should enter next years PACE challenge.

Yes, I too have noticed an increased high quality customer service.

Yes, there is no doubt about scientific misconduct. I think the entire math community agree on that.

This article is the tldr.

If they have zero-retention, then it is not possible.

So what they are saying is that they don't have zero retention.

That's a good question.

It is able to contribute code, but maybe not good code.

It's the same in math: it's able to solve problems, but not necessarily in a good way with a human readable code.

Math papers are a lot like software:

- theorems are like API

- lemmata like internal/private function API

- definitions are like types

- the proofs are the implementation

The proofs of ChatGPT are not necessarily readable or maintainable.

> Surely it's less effort to just make the bed?

It's not about the bed.

People areaddicted to generating now.

Slopoholics the whole bunch of them.

I have a house I like, a car I like, a career I like. Nothing in this post resonates with me.

Take control of your life and be satisfied with what you have. Put away your phone and pick up a book. Listen to a record. Watch a movie.

Yes, people around me want to rise, but I ain't stressin'.

What's with the title?

It's a Typescript-to-circuit converter/transpiler/compiler.

Why not just "Build a circuit in Typescript"?

> The false positive rate for Pangram 4 is something like one in 24,000.

First of all: says them.. Do you think they might have an incentive to boost their numbers?

Second, this is on existing text, which might be in their training data, no?

You mean why not say £ 1MM?

Says anonymous internet user with a 10 minutes old account.

> Lying is a core part of communicating mathematics. We lie to kindergarteners when explaining fractions. We lie to fourth graders when approaching limits...

Hard disagree.

Lying is with intention to deceive.

Teaching is simplifying with the intention that they understand and get the correct intuition.

Math is not about lying, that's just silly.

Say that you add and remove elements. Perhaps your data structure runs amortized constant time.

However, if the GC is, say, quadratic time, then this breaks the linearity of your algorithm.

This was indeed something that happened in recent releases og Python.

You are assuming GC runs in linear time.

Cannot cite Chesterton's fence too often.

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...

Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38653711

They forgot to include GC overhead.

> This should not be surprising at all. Every new students spends tiny fractions of time learning knowledge that took many lifetimes to discover.

This argument is exactly why we should not anthropomorphise models.

You are comparing the way a human brain learn with training a statistical model. You can't just "this is like learning so don't be surprised".

It takes a child one minute to learn how to open a padlock. Teach that to a robot with your analogies.

You only have to prove the formalization of the theorem statement. The formalized statement is guaranteed to be true if Lean says so.

There will always be a leap from the real world to the formal world.

Why not Markdown - pandoc - epub/pdf?

I don't know if it's weird. Is there an actual publication to cite? Or just a GitHub repo?

+1 for Strang.

Previously on Hacker News:

Linear Algebra Done Right 58 points, July 2023, 4 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36576114

Linear Algebra Done Right – 4th Edition, 631 points, Oct 2023, 294 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38060159

Linear Algebra Done Right [pdf], 85 points, Sept 2024, 39 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41416799